A discussion of the DAW as a compositional tool

[Pehr]

I don't like DAWs. Every time I try to learn one,
I just get restless and bored.
Mostly because there's no limits to it.

So I just mix it in a behringer mixer and records to a mp3-player instead.
Works fine for demotapes.

[arcticbeard]

Im talking Software DAWS here.

I have used LOGIC for about 15 years I started out on a power mac 7100 / 66 (before that an ATARI ST using omega).

You can use DAWS in so many different ways - the most basic way is as a tape recorder, I have an M Audio 1010 so I can use it to record multiple instruments at the same time & YES EVEN JAM ALONG WITH OTHERS.
For me it is a way of arranging sounds that I have recorded / created using various other tools, & adding guitars, basses, percussion, sound FX on top. I see no problem with using DAWS - you can get alot done quickly, cheaply & on your own if you prefer. No expensive tape (although I still use my DAT). I use other methods of working also, I like to learn new techniques.

The most important thing for me is the end result, & what you learnt along the way.

If you dont like DAWS - dont use them. The main point is we have a choice. There has never been a better time to make music.

[Kassen]

[Kassen]

[kara]

The topic is 'DAW as a compositional tool' and in that context I don't like DAWs neither.
When I'm composing I don't need a DAW, all I need is a keyboard, a piece of notation paper and a pen.
Even if I'm trying out some combination of tracks I don't like to use a DAW. I have a hardware recorder BOSS BR-660 sitting on the top of my G2X which does the job of recording with just a couple of buttons and it has 8 tracks, enough to try out some ideas.

Basically for me it comes to the fact that when I'm concentrating on composing I don't want to play with software.

[Antimon]

Interesting. Assume these two views on composing: 1) setting up sequencers, drones and so on that you will fade in and out or stop/start record track by track (related to something that you might be able to perform live), 2) a classical arrangement of individual notes to be played by various instruments. If you draw a line between these two, the DAW seems to end up in between, i little bit off the line. Of course, 1) and 2) can be combined, and there may be other approaches (tape recorder) as well.

I used to do a lot of 1), but lately I more tend to do 2). I wonder if you look at the DAW differently depending on where you come from?

/Stefan

[Low Note]

This conversation has been fascinating.

One thing I've always noticed, is that the ideas I pursue when working are different based on what medium i'm working in: notation software, paper/pencil, DAW, programming language.

On top of that, all of those ideas tend to be manipulated differently.

My long term goal is to be able to blend all of these into a single style, really. I want to be able to think about manipulating timbre when writing in pen/pencil and look for themes to develop when working in csound.

[ZooTooK]

Interesting thread.

In my experience I've found that some DAW can support the composing work a little bit more/different than the traditional tape recorder paradigm DAWs.

Ableton Live has e.g. the Session view where you can layer a few bars of audio or midi that get looped. I think it really can help to build grooves or even parts of songs. It can all then easily be transferred to an Arranger view that has more traditional tape recorder style.

The defunct Muzys (still available as Magazine-ware on every issue of Computer Music) has something called Playroom that gives you a table of all songs (parts of songs). Just click on one and it starts to play quantized to bar (or whatever) and loops until another song is selected.
You can by this "play" on a composer/arranger/DJ level and even record a session creating a new song that in turn can be used in new Playroom sessions.

These two examples (Energy XT 1 has something similar) is more of random access rather than the linear way of working, building up a song structure (A, A', B, B', A', C etc).

[ZooTooK]

Also, I've recently found a sequencer called Temper that support composing on a more micro level rather than on the macro level descibed above.

Temper has some tools that can manipulate your midi and even create midi based on certain rules and you can tweak the result using midi controllers. Difficult to explain but have look for your self. http://www.angryredplanet.com/temper/why/index.html
The software is still in beta but I havn't had any major issues yet.

I havn't got my head around this software yet but I believe it's ground breaking as it really tries to be a compositional tool and not just supporting the process of recording songs, which I think most DAWs do (and do very well).

[lacroix]

@electro80

When you record your own material using a DAW, then first of all you should be a bitching goodamn pain in the ass musician who kicks engineer ass ( and that engineer is you ) and you lock the goddamn producer ( that´s you too ) out of the studio until you and the engineer ( which still is you ) have sorted out the recording of the tracks.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting discussion and your right electro80.

My point of view:

If you compare, however, a musician to a painter, for a painter it's business as usual to create his picture without help from other people.

One of the future challenges are that all aspects of the musical creating and production process will be covered by the musician himself.
Especially in the electronic music. I think it's important to have these skills.
If I have to pay for a engineer, a producer and a studio I'm out of the game before I start.
This may be different if musicians get enough cash advance. But as a rule, there is no cash advance without artistic regimentation. And that's not the way I like it.

My definition of an electronic musician (artist) is similiar to a painter or sculptor. If you need a DAW for this, it's ok. If not, no problem.

"There are different ways to Rome".

[memedesigner]

[bachus]

To my mind composing and improvising are two compatible but different ways of creating music. I can’t play/improvise so I don’t mix the two-- I only compose. I have configured my DAW with the tools that suit my workflow (workdribble really). I compose in Sibelius, then massage and play midi data in Sonar and record etc. with Sonar also. Feels perfect to me.

I don’t’ grasp what the problem is with improvising with these tools as both capture real time midi data. Undoubtedly this is because I can’t play/improvise and so haven’t tried it. But I would be very interested to hear specifically what the problems are with these kinds of tools when used with improvisation.

Thanks for any enlightenment.

[memedesigner]

[dewdrop_world]

Apparently at the moment it will take longer to connect to the file than it took to make it initially curse slow web servers.

James

[Kassen]

[Kassen]

[memedesigner]

[memedesigner]

[dewdrop_world]

I don't remember whether I've made this point before, but every time I read through this thread, my first thought is that the visual focus of writing notes on a score was no impediment to, say, Brahms's creativity.

Improvisation and composition are, as Bachus said, different ways of working. I'd add that these are skills that have to be learned and practiced. Practicing composition, whether on paper or in a DAW, is just practicing the skill.

I am certainly hearing a lot of people here say that "composition" as such is not the top working method they would choose. I think it reflects a sea change in (western) musical culture. Where the classical tradition privileges structure and planning -- channeling musical impulses into carefully wrought architectures -- today the musical culture places a higher premium on spontaneity (or the illusion thereof) and the supposed authenticity that comes from the impression of immediacy. (Ironic since pop music is so horribly oveproduced, but aims at a three-feet-away false intimacy.)

Since I grew up in the classical tradition, I guess I feel differently about it. But, my own working method counterbalances planning and structure (by letting the computer work out some of the details) so I am responding to this change in my own way, I suppose.

James

[Kassen]

Yes, James, I agree with a lot of that.

First of all I should -perhaps a little late into the game- say that this topic started with what I didn't to be purely a objection to "the DAW as a compositional tool" but more as a objection to the DAW as a "go-between between the composer (if any) or the musician (if any) on one side and the instrument on the other with virtual sheet music lying in-between". My problem is partially that if there are roles that are unfulfilled in that scenario the modern DAW has a tendency to fill t hose without anyone consciously noticing due to the multiple-choice format, or so I suspect. This also happens in the Brahms scenario but there we can assume that everybody who had a influence on the process was also musically talented which -despite what press releases seem to imply these days- the DAW still isn't.

I completely agree with you about the charms of well composed (in the "constructed" sense of the word) formal music and I enjoy a fair share of that. I admit to also being a sucker for well composed pseudo-spontaneous pop and rock.

However, with this topic, the format that I find myself most attracted to these days isn't western and doesn't (to me) appear to be on the line defined by the two extremes you mention. For me something about all of this clicked when reading about traditional Eastern calligraphy. In calligraphy, as it was described to me, there was(is?) a huge emphasis on a extremely elaborate ritual of formal preparation for a single work, preparation that took a lot longer then the actual creative act of drawing the characters/image that happened in one short intense burst.

Perhaps that description was slightly romanticized (particularly the bit about the monk only getting round to putting a brush to paper in the final moments of the day) but it still struck a chord with me and it seems like a viable third option next to the ones you mention.

[dewdrop_world]

[Kassen]

Thanks! :¬)

And no, I wasn't yet but I will now look into him. I'll also forward the link to my GF who got interested in calligraphic drawing at the same time as I did though she took it a lot more literally and actually got out the brushes).

The process itself seems very fascinating, maybe it could be adapted to have a concrete ritual about setting up patches/classes/pedals and finally the G2 SC and CK people would find a true common ground.... in green tea. (of course that was slightly joking but I seriously think that would be a great idea.)

[memedesigner]

The process of composing is really interesting topic.

I just came home from a concert, they (Helsinki Philharmonic) performed world premier of Jukka Tiensuu's concerto for orchestra. Pretty nifty and accomplished piece, ironic and entertaining, quite traditional surface structures but I have no doubt there was quite a lot going on there underneath.

Now Jukka Tiensuu is definitely within the classical tradition. He was the professor of composition at Sibelius Academy -- may still be, have not followed his career too closely. No doubt he has spent quite a few hours with a notation program to craft this piece.

But then again, the last (and only this far) time I've talked with Jukka was in 1985 after a Einsturzende Neubauten gig. Looking at the so called western classical music tradition, I would think it can inhale and assimilate a lot of material initially alien to it. That tradition is just so wide.

A friend of mine did a radiophonic piece in the 90s with some pals of his, the got money from some art fund to go to Italy or somewhere south to work on the piece for quite a long time even. Dont remember the details that well.

What I do remember is that the guys ended wondering what is this 'listening' we do when listening to eg radio. And the final output -- hope I do them justice here -- of their efforts was a process of creating a set of shared ideas about listening. That process was the piece. Well certainly it wasnt aired, as there was nothing to perform there.

So there the process of composing became the result of composing. I think this shares something with zen music, where -- if recorded and not performed live -- what you hear is really more of a record of a 'moment of creation' than a 'music recording'.

I think pondering questions related to the process of composing/creation and then taking new kind of approaches to it -- like the ones above were some examples of -- can bring about wonderful new richness to the world. And DAWs may or may not have a natural role in that.

[kkissinger]

I have worked with DAWs since 1987 and have never returned to pencil and paper.

My first DAW was Dr. T's KCS and, at the time, I purchased the scoring program, too -- thinking that I wanted to compose while viewing a traditional score. As it turned out, I never looked at the score when composing! I really didn't need it.

My preferred method to compose is with the piano roll editor in Cubase. One of the reasons is that I can just "compose by ear" without feeling locked into a key signature (as one can be with standard notation.) The other thing I like about the DAW is that it can accomplish "grunt work" for me that used to add hours/days to the compositional process. For example, to change the key or mode or hear a passage backwards or inverted is as easy as a couple of mouse clicks with a DAW and -- well -- a lot of mechanical work when doing it manually.

The only time I print out traditional scores is when, after composing a work, I want to perform it. That is, I can compose with midi events or a piano roll editor however I still PLAY from standard notation (unless I improvise or play from memory.)

I find that with my keyboard and DAW (of course, using MIDI to communicate) I can capture and manipulate ideas very quickly. Thus, I have found the DAW quite a wonderful tool for composition.

[bachus]